Saturday, July 31, 2010

There’s a reason Socialist fervor seems to always resemble a wet dream of death. When all you have is the intellectual debris of a failed 19th century conception of society, and a penchance for invective meant to offer an elite power by destroying society, ones’ only hope is to look dramatic.

“If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

Friday, July 30, 2010

Iran has warned European Union states of "dire consequences" because of their decision to impose tighter sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program.

"Undoubtedly, such a confrontational approach may leave dire consequences in the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a letter to EU foreign ministers obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

The EU's decision "will definitely cause far greater losses for the European Union itself rather than for the Islamic Republic of Iran as this is amply demonstrated in all previous statistics," said the letter,

The EU’s response? Sanctions, until the Iranians agree to come back to the take and jerk them around for another 5 years, when even then it seemed a little too far-gone and pedantic:

EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton welcomed Iran's offer of a return to negotiations but said she wanted to see the details before commenting further.

Turkey and Brazil agreed a nuclear fuel swap deal with Tehran days before the U.N. agreed more sanctions in mid-June, but this did not stop the major powers -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- from pushing ahead with a stringent, fourth round of restrictions on Iran.

The European Union said on Monday that the aim of its latest sanctions was to get Iran to return to negotiations over its uranium enrichment programme, possibly by the end of the year.

That’ll fix their wagononce and for all! At least until some European government decides that they have to peddle more of their rubbish to Iran, and the whole thing will end there.

The European Commission is setting up a witch-hunting panel looking at the “impropriety” of Greece and Spain buying naval vessels at a time like this.

As EU officials are packing their holiday suitcases in Brussels, prosecutors in Germany, Portugal and Greece are on to a hot summer, tracing the complex trails of bribes and side-contracts to the German submarines each of the southern countries signed up for at a price of over €1billion.

The EU hypocrisy of allowing Greek and Portuguese governments allocate huge parts of their budget for questionable defence purchases, while they are being pressed for austerity measures to cap their deficit, already made headlines such as "The submarine deals that helped sink Greece" in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

Oh really? While the article does volunteer an explanation and the identities of the sellers, they’re months late.

France is pushing to sell six frigates, 15 helicopters and up to 40 top-of-the-range Rafale fighter aircraft.

Greek and French officials said President Nicolas Sarkozy was personally involved and had broached the matter when Papandreou visited France last month to seek support in the financial crisis.

They made political and monetary support of the Greek financial sector contingent upon it, calling the subsidy-cum-aid and blend it in with the “offsets” which are meant to function as a “buy European” clause for government contracts. Okay, fine. There’s more than one problem there, but they eventually mutates into a good-old-fashioned dirty dealing contracts which make arguments about conditional aid AND the Airbus v. Boeing deal seem venal.

"These contracts totally violate the EU's internal market competition rules," Portuguese Socialist MEP Ana Gomes told this website. "They are contracts negotiated among companies with government favouring and in total disregard of the competition rules. There are plenty of reasons why the European Commission should investigate, and make it an exemplary case to deter such behaviour from now on from any member state."

What’s hilari9ous about the whole thing is that we’re talking about arms sales from states such as Germany where 70% of the population opposes the pittance of a German force in Afghanistan, and a Superstate that fantasizes about it’s peaceful and pacifizing nature. In reality, they want someone else to take their risks of securing their space for them, and sell them the weapons to do it with. When that doesn’t work, they also want to sell them to one another as well.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Why is it that you believe — nay, why is it that you know — that the intricacies of, say, Barack Hussein Obama's relationship with the Reverend Wright are entirely unfounded, at best highly exaggerated, and, in the final analysis, not worth dwelling upon?

Is it because it is — is it because it happens to be — a fact?

And why is it that you believe — that you know — that, say, George W Bush is a helpless clod while Sarah Palin is a hopeless cause, and that Rush Limbaugh is a racist while Fox News is run by fascists or the equivalent thereof?

Is it because it is, is it because it happens to be, a fact?

Or is it because you have been told that it is a fact?

Is it because you have been told it is a fact by people with an undying commitment to neutrality, to objectivity, and to the truth (to the truth, to the whole truth, and to nothing but the truth)?

Or have you been told it is a fact, as it happens, not by nonpartisan truth seekers who are neutral and objective — although they claim to be (indeed, they are convinced that they are the epitome of neutrality and objectivity) — but by political activists and political tools who turn out to be, more or less secretly, (surprise!) pro-Democrat, pro-statist, and pro-Obama while being anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, and anti-conservative?

1. The JournoList and the Left's Demonization of Opponents

Some of the best articles on the JournoList scandal — what the Spectator's R Emmett Tyrrell Jr calls "a mother lode of left-wing bigotry, screeds, and semi-literate gibbering" — come from a fellow Spectator commentator: "as worldly wise as I like to think that I am," writes John R. Guardiano, "I have been stunned, shocked and appalled by the raw partisanship and animalistic lust for power displayed by this pack of left-wing journalists."

Of course I always [k]new most Washington journalists were leftists. But what I didn't realize were the depths of intellectual dishonesty and dishonor to which many Washington journalists would descend in order to protect leftist pols and smear conservatives.

Indeed, for anyone not familiar with the case (i.e., for anyone used to get his information from the mainstream media — or what (Glenn Reynolds agrees) should be called the One-Party Media), John R. Guardiano gives the run-down of the emails' "extremely troubling and reprehensible" content:

We always knew that most liberal journalists were biased. Now we know that many of them are dishonest — and that, like their leftist forbearers in the Soviet Union, they reserve unto themselves the right to lie and to cheat to further their political ends.

We know this because of the Daily Caller's astonishing report … that a cabal of liberal journalists, activists, and academics acted in concert, and with malice aforethought, to kill and bury stories that were unfavorable to their political masters: Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Indeed, these "journalists" were so blindly and zealously committed to the left-wing political agenda that they advocated smearing their political opponents with wholly unfounded charges of "racism" and "bigotry."

Thus Ackerman's call for his fellow lefty "journalists" to "pick one," any one conservative. After all, "who cares" who it is? Who cares about their innocence? Just pick a prominent conservative and call him a racist. Smear him! Show no mercy! Destroy his reputation and kill his public image! Now!

members of a listserv inhabited by liberal journalists and academics expressed their desire to see Rush Limbaugh die of a heart attack; to toss their enemies through plate glass windows; to call random conservatives racists; and to rid the country of those “fucking NASCAR retards.” … While commenters have noted blogger Spencer Ackerman’s sleazy suggestion that liberals start labeling random Republicans “racist”—pick a conservative, like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists"—few noticed the obsession with accusing opponents not of being misguided or wrong, but motivated by racial animus and Nazi-like…

In fact, as the Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong points out (thanks to Instapundit who has been following the controversy on a daily basis), it turns out that the JournoList membership included quite "a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans."

What's more, according to Jonah Goldberg (who describes the Journolist members as speaking "freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success"),

participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.

That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung works; contrary voices are regulated, barred, banned when possible, mocked and marginalized when not. Progressive voices are encouraged, lionized, amplified — in the name of "diversity," or "liberation," or "unity," and, most of all, "progress."

Now, let's see — what other subjects have been described as "out of bounds" and in what other Obama-related matters have the people interested in out-of-bounds subjects been described, with a smirk or with a snort — i.e., "mocked and marginalized" — as racists and/or as nutcases?

Well, just about everything regarding Barack Obama and his past. All of it has been declared off-bounds or of little interest, whether it is his connections to the Weather Underground, to Bill Ayers, to his university's law journal, and to Acorn — and, indeed, whether it is Acorn's own alleged dedication to fair and honest work methods. Did (any of) the JournoListers uncover anything worth knowing regarding Obama, or, indeed, did they even refuse to try to uncover, or even investigate, anything at all (unlike, say, the bogus report of John McCain's infidelity or the innumerable stories on Sarah Palin's family members)?

And so, we finally get to the subject of this post, the matter of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate…

I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.
But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about [the occupant of the Oval Office].

Now, before you react to this by saying "Oh God there's another one!" or "Lord haven't they gotten over this yet?" — whether you are liberal or conservative or neutral (independent) — then ask yourself, am I rolling my eyes heavenwards while sighing and saying/thinking this because it is a fact that it is a tiring subject (since the people asking for Obama's birth certificate can only be racists and/or nutjobs) or because I have been told that (it is a fact that) it is a tiring subject (since the people asking for Obama's birth certificate can only be racists and/or nutjobs) — having been told so, again, by people who just happen to be supporters of the Democrats' élitist world view, people who just happen to have a tradition of progressivism, and people who just happen to have a tradition of… demonizing any and all members of the opposition?

As it happens, No Pasarán has written about Barack Obama's birth certificate a total of three times. Over a period of, say, three years where Barack Obama has been in the national limelight, and calculating an average of one post a day (it has often been more), this comes to one post out of 365 or an average of less than 0.3 % of our coverage, which, I take it, any neutral observer will agree can hardly be said to be the product of extremism or zealotry. (But then again, do we know that interest in Obama's birth certificate can only be explained by extremism or zealotry because it is a fact or because we have been told it is a fact? — you should be getting the idea by now…) What's more, in two of the three posts the birth certificate is not even the main topic of the post.

So, as you can see, No Pasarán has refrained from approaching the birth certificate issue — certainly, we feel safe to say, because it hasn't interested us, but then is the reason it hasn't interested us (sorry if this sounds repetitive, but it also happens to be necessary) been because it is a fact that it is an uninteresting (and — yawn — tiring) topic? Or because we have been told, because it has been hammered into our heads, that it is an uninteresting (and tiring) topic and that, furthermore, if we do approach the topic we will be denigrated (with reason or otherwise), by the liberal élites as well as by conservatives who think (I mean, who "know") that it is an uninteresting (and tiring) topic in which racists alone and/or nutjobs alone and/or extremists alone and/or zealots alone can be interested — yes, I know: you get the idea by now…

Let's be honest: Have you been reluctant to examine the "rants" of the "Birthers" and have I been reluctant to examine the "Birthers'" "rants" because they in fact are racists and/or nutjobs (something — conveniently — inherent in the very word, Birthers) or because we have been told that they are (as a fact) racists and/or nutjobs — told so by people with a slobbering love affair (thanks, Jenny Erikson, via Instapundit) with Barack Obama? It is entirely possible that a number of the "Birthers" may in fact turn out to be racists and/or nutjobs, but if we wander away from the (demonized) personalities and the ad hominems, what can we tell about the facts alone of the case? Can we see just the arguments, whether or not they are voiced by intelligent responsible people (like the members of… the JournoList?), by racists and/or nutjobs, or by whoever may be in-between?

Since the left's modus operandi is to go after opponents' personal lives (now that's a revelation) and portray them as racists and… nutjobs, can we simply review the facts, Ma'am?

3. A Dispassionate Examination of the Facts, of the Nutjobs, and of Obama's Youth

May we be allowed to examine this issue — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

[Update: Not until April 2011 did the White House finally release Barack Obama's original birth certificate.]

Why are there some Americans who doubt the narrative that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii, or elsewhere in the United States? After all, noone ever doubted that George W Bush was born in the United States or that John Kerry or Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Bob Dole or Ross Perot were born in the United States.

So, isn't this proof that only Obama's color is the only reason for these nutjobs, these racists, these birthers, to claim, preposterously, that Obama was born abroad — or that he is a Muslim, or a socialist, or indeed a communist?

But then, again, neither George W Bush nor John Kerry nor Al Gore nor Bill Clinton nor Bob Dole nor Ross Perot had a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did they spend numerous years of their childhoods abroad — many years, if not most, of which were in a Muslim country.

Should Allen West, or JC Watts, or Thomas Sowell run for president, noone would ask where they were born or demand to see their their (original) birth certificate as proof. But perhaps that is because those black men are Republicans (proving thereby that conservatives are biased)?

Hardly. That is because those African-Americans (emphasis on the "Americans" part) are known to have grown up in the United States and are known to have had parents who were not foreigners — certainly not at the time of their birth (i.e., if either of the parents was born abroad, he or she had become an American citizen by the time of his or her famous offspring's birth). And indeed, it is the same for left-leaning blacks (as it is for whites, left-leaning of otherwise).

Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and 1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad, and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend numerous years abroad. Similarly, it is unlikely that Al Sharpton (who grew up in Brooklyn) would ever be asked for his birth certificate. Neither Baptist minister would be likely accused of being a Muslim, although both might very well be described as socialists, or as communists — and that, for reasons that, in the final analysis, are pretty valid…

For the record, I am an American citizen (a dual citizen, actually), a WASP-ish blue-eyed blond white male who has a foreigner for a father and who spent many years of his childhood in foreign countries, and if ever I were to run for president, I would think it entirely normal for fellow citizens to ask for my birth certificate — indeed, I would think it abnormal if they did not. (In case you're interested, I was born in Prague, but because of the circumstances of my birth — comparable to John McCain's (I was born in a diplomatic family) — as far as I can tell, this should not prevent me from running… So: see you in the year 2024…)

After all, Barack Obama is not being asked to provide his tax statements or medical records (both of which actually turn out to be the norm for politicians to provide to the public and each of which is a far more intrusive document than a simple statement about an infant's birth location), nor is he being asked to provide some sort of far-fetched Jim-Crowe-era certificate, such as, say, the birth certificate of a grand-parent.

Besides, there are many basic things that a president, that any president (whatever the pigment of his — or her — skin), owes his populace, i.e., the people who are his "masters"…

As I've written before, in one of No Pasarán's rare birth certificate posts (re "rare": notice how I feel constantly forced — even now [indeed, that's one reason I took so long to get around to the main subject] — to justify myself regarding the birth certificate controversy):

It may well be that most of the writings concerning the wherabouts of Obama's birth sound delusional, but, as far as I can tell, James L Lambert's arguments are far from nonsensical… There are two problems with the alleged deluded "Birther" conspiracy that are ignored by Kos (and everywhere else). They are, first, that the real, original "long" birth certificate never seems to have materialized (the certificate of live birth being, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, a recent production); second, that to believe that an American citizen born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country is not that far-fetched.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life?

As the Daily Caller reports, several hundred journalists, activists and academics secretly conspired on Journolist. What did they know and when did they know it — and with whom did they conspire and why? … there are a lot of unanswered questions that still surround the lingering Journolist scandal. … We're not talking about private love letters, after all. We're talking about coordinated journalistic actions designed to shape and influence what is reported in the public prints.

For the type of people who didn't find it abnormal, in response to questions regarding a presidential candidate's relationship to a hate-filled pastor, for one of their number to call for picking one (or several) of the candidate's critics — “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists”, it sounds suspiciously like it was par for the course to agree, directly or not, overtly or otherwise, to call racist or fanatic anyone who brought up common-sensical questions regarding that candidate's (undetectable) birth certificate.

The question we need to ask, what is there about Obama's past — including the birth certificate, but not only that — that was discussed among JournoList members, on the surface or in depth, not necessarily to hide a particular secret, unpalatable or otherwise (I doubt that Ezra Klein, David Weigel, Jonathan Chait, Michael Tomasky, Matthew Yglesias, or Spencer Ackerman have any better idea than I do where a given politician was 49 years ago — and they certainly do not seem to have been interested in finding out), but simply to make sure the topic continued unexplored, that it would remain unperturbed — while at the same time demonizing anyone (as racist, as fascist, as extremist, as a nutjob) who might demonstrate a (far from unreasonable) interest therein.

France is proud of having a diplomatic apparatus that resembles an industrial scale powerhouse. The EU’s “External Action Service” seems otherwise to be too large by half, even in its crib, writes Boris Biancheri in La Stampa [IT] [EN] .

As always, at the heart of the dealing lies the question of the distribution of power among the various players, who represent the different branches of the EU: How are tasks distributed between the Commission and this new service, notably in the sensitive dossiers concerning development aid and humanitarian projects? How much control will the Parliament have over the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and this new diplomatic service? Who will be responsible for its administration? Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The one question that goes unasked is: “how can anyone ELSE deal with them?” The question doesn’t seem to come up.

Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The other individual sovereign states, that is to say the rest of the world, on the other hand, will continue to find them to be just another squabbling and infighting party to deal with in among 27-30 other entities that Europeans represent themselves in global dialog.

Without some logical order of precedence, ‘federalization’ of authority, or separation of powers, how, in heavens’ name, are they to be taken seriously or dealt with in with any more seriousness as a well-meaning delegation from the Lions’ Club?

In truth, you aren’t. You’re just supposed to designate them as relevant, important, and render them the respect that comes with experience and authority: each of which they have absolutely none of.

The Community machine has in the past known the problems of gargantuan bureaucracy, where the desire for prestige mixes with national ambitions: some have already placed their bets on the identity of the future Secretary General of the new European diplomatic corps, which will probably be – Hear, hear! – a Frenchman, the ambassador Vimont, flanked by – and not by chance – a German woman. However, it would be a shame if the first child of the Treaty of Lisbon were not the embryo of a concrete and efficient external policy, but rather just another weighty bureaucracy, the fruit of secret agreements, with no identity of its own.

Biancheri’s clarity of thinking needs to be applauded, as he asks that if one is to establish this new leviathan, that it do what its’ assigned to actually do:

At a time where public opinion is focused on harmonising divergent national interests and stabilising the euro and political objectives within the EU, allowing little consideration for external political policy. At a time when everyone can see that the larger external issues facing the EU, including dealings with Russia, Turkey and the United States, have met with more divergence than agreement. And finally, at a time when it is more than ever necessary to have a concrete sense of reality, one wonders if it is in the EU's best interests to advance a project whose function and role have yet to be clearly defined.

Odds on, it will molt away over and over for a decade or two until it gets there, but be little more than a make-work outfit for former newspaper-writes who can tie a necktie, and mop up an army of recent “peace studies” graduates.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

"…in light of the credit crunch and a growing public debt problem, Denmark’s generous public spending has come under scrutiny" writes Natalia Rachlin in the New York Times after referring to the country as "something out of a fairy tale: a place where social benefits are not just a last resort for the underprivileged, but an ingrained part of everyday existence, even for high earners."

Specifically, the state-funded pension program … has fueled a discussion about the paradox of Denmark’s high earners receiving many of the same social benefits as the very neediest citizens.

“Way too many Danes think ‘What’s in it for me?’ instead of considering what’s best for Denmark,” Bendt Bendtsen, a member of the European Parliament and a former leader of the Danish Conservative Party, told the financial daily Boersen in a recent interview.

…Denmark has the highest overall tax burden of all O.E.C.D. member countries, with taxes to G.D.P. reaching 48.2 percent in 2009. Furthermore, numbers from the O.E.C.D. show that Denmark has one of the highest marginal tax rates for high earners — 67 percent — when consumer taxes are included.

“If you take away social benefits from high earners, it’s basically the same thing as taxing them even more heavily,” said Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist at Cepos, a center-right research organization in Copenhagen. “The question quickly becomes, why stay in Denmark? And the thing is, we need high earners here to invest in businesses, to keep the economy rolling.”

…Mr. Hansen of Cepos pointed to calculations done by his organization, based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Statistics Denmark, that show that in 2010 the percentage of the adult population living entirely off transfer income — whether it be welfare, student checks or state retirement funds — is at 43.2 percent.

…Lars Bruhn, founder and chairman of NorthCap Partners, a major venture capital firm … acknowledged that Mr. Bendtsen’s comments had started an important discussion about how to get Denmark back on track. But he added that any solution that amounted to increasing the burden on the country’s handful of high-net-worth individuals would be counterproductive — no matter how politically popular it might be.

“This will undoubtedly lead some business angels, those wealthy individuals who will invest in the next generation, to leave the country in order to avoid being a Dane – leaving behind what’s supposedly the happiest nation on earth,” he said.

LONDON (Reuters) - Protesters from environmental group Greenpeace disabled some of BP's 50 petrol stations in central London on Tuesday in protest at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.Greenpeace said its activists had managed to close down 47 service stations in the capital. BP confirmed 30 had been forced to close temporarily. The company branded the demonstrations an "act of vandalism" and said it would reopen the sites as soon as it was safe to do so.The protests coincided with BP's second-quarter results where the oil company reported a $17 billion loss and said it had set aside $32 billion to tackle the spill.

They are angry, therefore, 'Capitalists' may not have earnings, simply because they aren't smart enough to figure out how to benefit from them themselves. Setting aside the obvious ignorance of this style of ‘activism’ (it’s actually just a fig leaf for adolescent lashing out), leftism is an exhibit of envy and hatred. Without invective, it has little to believe in.

September 1944: From the German magazine “Simplissimus”, we find the same argument employed by the French left today. That American and British, nay ”Anglo-Saxon” hostility is poisoning their bucolic, egalitarian idyll.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone in an interview decried what he called the Jewish lobby's control over Washington's foreign policy and said that Hitler's actions should be put "into context.”

Oliver Stone, have long lost an audience in the North America is obviously reaching out to Europe and the Near East when he makes the Hitler made the trains run on timekept the gas chambers running argument:

On Hitler, Stone said that the German leader “did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 million. Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein -- German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

As if that makes it okay. After all, when you’re a died in the will agitational revolutionary trying to crash test civilization until it turns into a authoritarian state, human rights means human rights for SOME with whom you feel politically warm to, and not those of the individual’s rights.

Demonize him? Sure. He earned it with his moral illiteracy.

Stone recently completed a documentary on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and is working on a documentary series about American history.

It follows a familiar pattern: parrot some patriotism only in a “Born on the 4th of July” context, so long that it degrades society, turn the murder of JFK into a history lesson in factually absent cabal conspiracy, rattle on about “an American empire”and so forth. All for “the cause” of reconstructing “the context” around some people and ideas, but not others. Yadda yadda. Basically, it’s a repetition of Nazi propaganda.

Here’s the historical context behind Stone thoughts:

”Lustige Blätter” (the Nazi funny pages), circa 1942. The caption reads: "Behind the Curtains." A Jewish puppeteer is looking nervously at his remaining puppets: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. On the floor are broken former puppets, including Neville Chamberlain.

For Stone, it’s okay, because Nazism was just another form of the Marxist-Leninism that he tacitly promotes and advances the cause of.

Monday, July 26, 2010

According to Le Point, French gangsters have put every member (some reports say several members, not all) of Grenoble's 45-strong anti-gang police force on a hit list, following the latter's killing of a gangster during a casino hold-up, writes Le Monde.

Líder Maximo emerges as "Maximo Dealer," puns Tageszeitung in the wake of the July 21 announcement by the Spanish Foreign Minister and the Cuban parliament chief that all of the island’s political prisoners would now be released. According to the Berlin daily, Cuba, which urgently needs to restore economic relations with the European Union, is applying a method reminiscent of the communist state in East Germany: to obtain hard currency, the GDR was in the habit of imprisoning anyone it believed West Germany would pay to have released. TAZ warns that there is no guarantee that the current state of affairs "will not lead to a new wave of arrests."